The other thing to say about the bond market is that in many respects they're remarkably lenient - I guess there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a safe harbour. Britain has been able to borrow an astonishing amount of money over the last ~two decades, and hasn't spent it on all that much of use, and the bond market has been largely fine with it, because Britain has always had a halfway plausible plan to be able to pay it back in the future.
I think there are lots of ways that a future Green government, or a new Labour PM determined to spend more, can increase spending, provided that they are able to provide the bond market with a halfway plausible plan for being able to pay it back in the future. It's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of people around determined not to meet it, determined not to learn the lesson of the Truss Calamity.
And UK debt as compared to GDP is high, but not out of line with many other countries. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CHN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA gives 2024 figures. The UK is at 101%, while above us are Portugal (102%), the US (103%), Italy (133%), Bahrain (134%), Greece (170%), Singapore (177%), Japan (201%) and Taiwan (245%!!!). France and Spain (94%) are not much below us.
We have done this before about Singapore, thats its really a totally fake figure. We know Japan is a mess. I would be intetested to know, is Taiwan that high for the same reasons as Singapore i.e. it down to the way the accounting of health and pension systems work rather than actual real debt.
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
But profit disappearing overseas to a tech oligarch's bank account doesn't benefit the UK.
Just found out about a 50% steel tarriff coming in on July 1st, announced in March !
To supposedly encourage domestic steel to be bought, but there isn't any with the mad policies of Ed Miliband. We buy it in, turn it into products and export those to the Chinese amongst others.
The interesting aspect of Starmers refusal to resign is this completely screws Burnham .
It’s forcing an earlier challenge .
Sky reporting that it could be as early as today that Burnham will announce the seat he will stand in
There is a good chance he will just cost Labour a seat. If you add the Reform/Green surge and the fact that a lot of Labour members want Starmer to continue, it is hard to think any seat is a sure thing.
I'm crunching the numbers from last Thursday for my part of the world. The Labour implosion here was dramatic to say the least.
In my Ward, the Labour vote share fell from 61% to 23% and I make the swing to the Newham Independents 34% which even a Lib Dem like me used to such huge swings against the Conservatives finds impressive.
Coincidentally, my Ward had the best Conservative result in the whole Borough - 19% and third in front of the Greens. Stodge Towers is obviously in the better part of the Borough (that's a stretch compared to Olympic Park or the Docks admittedly but if you had told me 10 years ago, the day would come when the Conservatives would poll better in my Ward than Royal Victoria or Royal Albert I would have thought you East Ham (one stop away from Barking)).
Labour came out canvassing on the Friday before the election "knocking on the Tamil doors" so one of the candidates told me but they had obviously given up on the Muslims. However, the Tamils split between Labour and the Conservatives and the NIP came through the middle.
Worth noting the turnout in my Ward was 40% compared with 35% in 2022 and across most of the Borough there was a small but significant rise in turnout.
Labour did fight hard to be fair in other parts of the Borough - they held on to a seat in Plaistow North and one in Green Street West which I had considered unlikely.
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
But profit disappearing overseas to a tech oligarch's bank account doesn't benefit the UK.
Would you like to go and tell that to the swathes of people in the Uk who feed their families by working for firms owned overseas?
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
I suspect that will prove as accurate as your prediction that Arsenal will cruise to the title by 9 points. They will be lucky to crawl over the finishing line.
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Manchester is probably growing more with Burnham than because of him.
The fundamentals were already there: multiple universities, airport, transport links, media, finance, London pricing people out, critical mass etc. Once a city hit can tick all these boxes it tends to keep compounding.
What Burnham has probably done well is give Greater Manchester coherent political leadership and push sensible devolved transport integration - his Bee Network is actually pretty good.
The harder question is whether Manchester’s success can be replicated elsewhere or whether it simply becomes the North’s version of London, hoovering up talent and investment from surrounding towns.
If you compare with European countries, our cities outside of London massively underperform economically.
Basically a combination of excessive concentration of political power in London, and central government starving the regions of investment. Solving that isn't particularly complicated, but it would require a lot of political will, and the results, while potentially game changing for the economy, would take years to show through.
In the 19th Century the City of York Corporation built 3 bridges in about a 750 metre stretch. These were all authorised by Westminster but, crucially, they were all funded by borrowing by the City and the city was given the option of either charging a toll, taking it from local rates, or combination of the both. The terms were strict; loans were required to be paid back over a fixed period and at the end the bridges had to become free. They were also never allowed to pay off less than 1/loan period per year.
There is really no reason why modern Leeds should not be able to do something similar. Except - of course - it would reduce London's power over the regions.
I recently learned that the Sagrada Família is entirely privately funded (now by ticket sales and donations)
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
Which might be fine if there wasn’t £2.9trn, 94% of GDP, of public sector net debt that needs servicing.
As @DavidL pointed out yesterday, 1pp on gilt rates costs £30bn per year over time.
The solutions are either dramatic cuts in spending, narrowing the scope of government significantly, or accepting several years of devaluation and inflation.
Or growing the economy with sensible investment.
If you want to grow the economy then build roads.
Build a road and investment follows along each side - new housing, new industrial estates, new business parks, new recreational facilities.
That building is not the train station. The train station is to the left of this photograph. That is the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology. Its been there for years, and is actually quite a nice building from the right angles. https://x.com/peterrhague/status/2054116479595880689
Did anyone say it’s the train station on X? They said it’s hideous. And it is
It was me on here that misconstrued. Mind you it is hideous. Utterly hideous
Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Deputy PM all told him to go. Defence Secretary.
Health Secretary has told him he'll stand if a contest is declared. And West now has the numbers.
I get the stand and fight bit. But he has to show authority which means sacking the rebels.
Can’t help feeling that whoever replaces Starmer is going to run into exactly the same constraints that the current government faces, both monetary and political.
None of them seem to have any actual policy ideas that the current government is not implementing. Am I missing some grand political strategy any of them have signed up to?
At least you knew what Corbyn / MacDonnell stood for.
A few days ago a supposed wishlist of Burnham policies was reported by one of the papers. It had a lot of new spending commitments, fewer new taxes to pay for it and a commitment to increasing devolution. I have Burnham identified as the Labour figure most likely to do a Truss.
The other thing to say about the bond market is that in many respects they're remarkably lenient - I guess there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a safe harbour. Britain has been able to borrow an astonishing amount of money over the last ~two decades, and hasn't spent it on all that much of use, and the bond market has been largely fine with it, because Britain has always had a halfway plausible plan to be able to pay it back in the future.
I think there are lots of ways that a future Green government, or a new Labour PM determined to spend more, can increase spending, provided that they are able to provide the bond market with a halfway plausible plan for being able to pay it back in the future. It's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of people around determined not to meet it, determined not to learn the lesson of the Truss Calamity.
And UK debt as compared to GDP is high, but not out of line with many other countries. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CHN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA gives 2024 figures. The UK is at 101%, while above us are Portugal (102%), the US (103%), Italy (133%), Bahrain (134%), Greece (170%), Singapore (177%), Japan (201%) and Taiwan (245%!!!). France and Spain (94%) are not much below us.
We have done this before about Singapore, thats its really a totally fake figure. We know Japan is a mess. I would be intetested to know, is Taiwan that high for the same reasons as Singapore i.e. it down to the way the accounting of health and pension systems work rather than actual real debt.
Japan is a mess in some ways, but they're still able to borrow and haven't had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That's the point.
If anyone knows what's behind the Taiwan figure, that would be interesting.
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
I suspect that will prove as accurate as your prediction that Arsenal will cruise to the title by 9 points. They will be lucky to crawl over the finishing line.
I’m not sure I remember ever making any predictions about the football.
And we’re off. Real world response to Labour’s current psychodrama: bank stocks are being sold off, gilts spiked 10% at opening and the pound fell 0.5% against the dollar.
The yield on 30-year debt has just hit its highest level since 1998.
GENERAL ELECTION INCOMING
Seriously, what are the odds on a GE in 2026? They might be VALUE
Well if Labour do change PM I really, really hope all those who banged on about the Tories needing to hold a GE as there was NO mandate for the new PM, will do the same.
I suspect I will not hear much from them.
There's no obligation for a Prime Minister to "seek a mandate" as soon as they enter No.10 if they have not come through the GE route.
John Major waited about as long as he could as did Gordon Brown. May sought her mandate in just under a year while Sunak was about a year and a half.
Obviously, unless forced by the timetable or other circumstances (Sunak), no Prime Minister is going to go to the country until they have to or unless the political winds look favourable and as Theresa May aptly demonstrated, they may look favourable at the start of the campaign but that doesn't mean they'll end looking so favourable.
As for Boris Johnson, he inherited a dire polling situation forthe Conservatives but that position improved steadily and inexorably during the latter part of 2019 allowing him to choose a December election safe in the knowledge he would win.
Brown had a brief "honeymoon" where he might have won an election but Osborne's famous speech at the Conservative Conference ended that. Could any new PM enjoy a honeymoon and be tempted to take advantage? I can't see it.
I know all this - my point was the constant 'general election now' crap from non Tories.
That's all part of the general political knockabout, isn't it?
Those who want this Government gone (as distinct from those who simply want Starmer gone) will take any and every disruption to clamour for an election which will rightly be ignored.
Starmer and Labour won a mandate in July 2024 just as Johnson and the Conservatives did in December 2019.
The most entertaining course now would be for Starmer to cling on at the request of the soft left to allow Burnham in, only for Andy to crash and burn at a by-election.
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
Which might be fine if there wasn’t £2.9trn, 94% of GDP, of public sector net debt that needs servicing.
As @DavidL pointed out yesterday, 1pp on gilt rates costs £30bn per year over time.
The solutions are either dramatic cuts in spending, narrowing the scope of government significantly, or accepting several years of devaluation and inflation.
Or growing the economy with sensible investment.
If you want to grow the economy then build roads.
Build a road and investment follows along each side - new housing, new industrial estates, new business parks, new recreational facilities.
It would be nice if the roads we already have werent like lunar dirt tracks. But yes I think we’re going to need a massive amount more road capacity, demand is going to skyrocket with self driving cars, an older population that does less urban commuting etc…
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 23m If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
I don't think BJO was in any doubt about its authenticity, but he demonstrates a good understanding of psychology. People are more likely to click the link if asked to judge whether it is real, than if a known partisan shares a link that they say is funny.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 23m If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
I’ve just realised the closest analogy to the UK 2026. It’s not Germany or Japan or Greece or even Britain in the 70s
It’s the Ottoman Empire in about 1912. Grievously in debt, literally falling apart, racially turbulent, governed by idiots, pretending to be what it isn’t, militarily enfeebled, the sick man of Europe - hollowed out in multiple ways
Which means we don’t need a Streeting, Burnham or Miliband. We need Kemal Ataturk
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
But profit disappearing overseas to a tech oligarch's bank account doesn't benefit the UK.
Would you like to go and tell that to the swathes of people in the Uk who feed their families by working for firms owned overseas?
You appear to have moved the goalposts. I made no general objection to firms owned overseas. I object to companies that play financial tricks to move money out of the UK economy and who damage UK society. (Twitter employs about 100 people in the UK. Is 100 smaller than a swathe?)
Now *Darren Jones* is reported to be out sounding out supporters for his own run...
I thought he might get at least a few months as Chancellor to bolster his credentials, as I'd expected Starmer to have a cabinet reshuffle as part of his last-ditch rescue reset after the local elections.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 23m If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
I've got some sympathy with Starmer refusing to bow to pressure.
If you want to kill the king then you can't miss, nor can you not bother taking your shot and just ask him to leave nicely because you don't think he's doing a great job. And having resignations from the kitchen staff to force him out.
Have a proper leadership challenge and be done with it. Burnham only has himself to blame for not being an MP.
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Indeed. Take something that works and apply it elsewhere. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
I don’t know why, I’d be interested too. But it does seem a little odd that given the growth and alleged great feeling in the city and region Labour got a battering from left and right.
There is also much skepticism surrounding “Manchesterism”, with suggestions it has merely sucked in economic energy from nearby smaller towns
I don’t know who is right. I’d like the skeptics to be wrong. It’s nice to think SOMEWHERE in the UK is thriving
The city/town thing is interesting, and highlights one of the sad tradeoffs we have to make.
There's a pretty convincing argument that big cities are more productive than small towns. More chances to make new connections, spark off new ideas. If you are young, they're also just more fun. It's fun to meet lots of new contemporaries, rather than the same thirty you went to school with. That doesn't have to be another ring of building on the fringe, it could just be improving the transport links.
Manchester has intentionally grown- more trams, bigger universities, more media. It was doing that before Mayor Andy and I trust it will do so after him. And that's worked. It probably has sucked energy out of the surrounding towns- their role has changed from hubs in their own right into subsiduary parts of GM. But that's what always happens- Romford has changed from a first town outside London into an agreeable outer suburb, and that's traumatic for people who have deeper roots here than I do. And the overall effect is to leave everyone better off.
Or take the northern town I have most experience of- Mirfield. Historically, it had local industries like textiles and boatyards. They've largely gone, and it's a quirky place to live with a monastery and waterfront and easyish access to Leeds. That's a process that's been happening for decades.
So what do we want? Keep economic activity scattered in towns, even if it makes us all less rich? Or accept that cities generate prosperity better, and use that money to make it easier for towns to function as suburbs? How you balance those depends quite a lot on how prosperous you are yourself. But denying the choice is one of the bits of denial that we've largely indulged in for too long.
On Greater Manchester: clearly Manchester itself is doing well. But it's not at the expense of all the other towns: Altrincham is doing very well indeed, Stockport is on the up and despite perhaps a more downbeat retail offer than it was in the 80s is doing rather better than ever, Bury is doing all right. Manchester is not sucking the life out of those places. Wigan is not thriving, but - and I'd invite e.g. @dixiedean 's view here - seems to be doing no worse than at any time in the last 30 years. Ditto Tameside. But Rochdale (civic motto: "it could be worse, look at Oldham") and Oldham are awful and Bolton has declined massively in my lifetime.
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I don't live in Oldham.
I don't think this is cities sucking the life out of towns. I think this is towns thriving or failing for reasons of their own.
Wigan. I'm not living there but my family still does. It's much better off than even 10 years ago. Rents are increasing at above the national average and there's a shed load of new housing. House prices are rising, but they haven't reached farcical levels as of yet. It's blessed with some of the best transport links in the country and is commutable for both Liverpool and Manchester. It's been substantially "greened" since I was a kid, too. Large areas which were derelict industrial sites are now back in a state of nature. It's a Cavalier, Royalist outpost in Puritan Lancashire. King Street on a Friday is as decadent and louche as anywhere. Great music and club scene. You have a good time in Wigan. It's a culture which grew out of mining. You knew the people on your shift at your pit. You lived with them. And trusted them quite literally with your life. Those from another shift, another pit were alien. Leigh thinks it shouldn't be Wigan. Most Wiganers don't visit Leigh. Bolton is another world. Manchester might as well be another Solar System. It suffers from having had a huge drain on the population over decades. There really weren't any opportunities. A great number of people left never to return including me. The people who remained are absolutely lovely. Some of the kindest, friendliest people in the country. But very much ones who are content with narrow horizons. There's nowt wrong with that at all. But they don't need, want or like change. And it's changing. Folk are moving in. With wine bars and Thai food and the like. And Turkish barbers. People don't necessarily like it. If they did they'd have left long ago.
What i find odd about Starmer having to be dragged kicking and screaming out.of #10 is the claim was he never really wanted to be PM, it was stop Jezza and that if he did get elected it would be one term max and he doesnt look like a man who enjoys being PM at all (other foreign jollies, which the off ramp people are giving him is go be foreign secretary).
Most Prime Ministers don't have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
And we’re off. Real world response to Labour’s current psychodrama: bank stocks are being sold off, gilts spiked 10% at opening and the pound fell 0.5% against the dollar.
The yield on 30-year debt has just hit its highest level since 1998.
GENERAL ELECTION INCOMING
Seriously, what are the odds on a GE in 2026? They might be VALUE
What i find odd about Starmer having to be dragged kicking and screaming out.of #10 is the claim was he never really wanted to be PM, it was stop Jezza and that if he did get elected it would be one term max and he doesnt look like a man who enjoys being PM at all (other foreign jollies, which the off ramp people are giving him is go be foreign secretary).
Most Prime Ministers don't have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
Allies of Burnham tell me this morning a timetable of electing a new Labour leader and PM by conference end of Sept would give the Manchester mayor enough time to get back to Westminster and stand. “Colleagues will not accept another London leader”
This is the problem with the Labour party right now and I suspect part of that has been the total media focus on Wes Streeting, Angela Raynor and Andy Burnham who isn't even in Parliament and any attempt to try to shoe horn him back into Parliament via an unnecessary by-election comes with huge risks for his leadership ambitions and the Labour party right now.
Like the Conservative membership in recent years, Labour yet again risk picking a leader that is the most tolerable to their membership/grassroots rather than picking a leader that is a natural central ground candidate that will attract wider support from the electorate who might be tempted to vote for Reform, Conservatives or Libdem in different parts of the country! And that is the big problem Labour face when it comes to replacing Keir Starmer right now despite their large majority, they have so many first time MPs who face the threat of being unseated from different parties in various parts of the UK.
There is no doubt that there is no single one faction pushing for Keir Starmer to go, this anger and discontent with his leadership is coming from across the board, but what I cannot see right now is a single candidate within the Labour Westminster Parliamentary party that would be able to bring the party and membership together as well as being seen as popular choice among the wider electorate. The big danger is that they pick their own Liz Truss and live to regret it before being forced to pick a more sensible choice like Rushi Sunak last minute but leaving them with a poisoned chalice and no chance of turning things around.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 23m If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
Lets all understand the reality here. If Starmer refuses to go and Streeting refuses to challenge him, the problem doesn't go away. The opposite. It gets worse, a cancer spreading through the PLP where so much of their run time is focused on it rather than governing.
But with the greatest respect to Wes, we are all waiting for Burnham. If he announces that (a) he is seeking selection to Urmston (typical voter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyiMVkgW-4) and (b) wants to challenge Starmer, then we're back to the NEC. Because even if Streeting then stands, it would be extraordinary for the NEC to propose a timetable that excludes Burnham.
What fun. And I thought all of this was finished with the change of government.
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Indeed. Take something that works and apply it elsewhere. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
I don’t know why, I’d be interested too. But it does seem a little odd that given the growth and alleged great feeling in the city and region Labour got a battering from left and right.
There is also much skepticism surrounding “Manchesterism”, with suggestions it has merely sucked in economic energy from nearby smaller towns
I don’t know who is right. I’d like the skeptics to be wrong. It’s nice to think SOMEWHERE in the UK is thriving
The city/town thing is interesting, and highlights one of the sad tradeoffs we have to make.
There's a pretty convincing argument that big cities are more productive than small towns. More chances to make new connections, spark off new ideas. If you are young, they're also just more fun. It's fun to meet lots of new contemporaries, rather than the same thirty you went to school with. That doesn't have to be another ring of building on the fringe, it could just be improving the transport links.
Manchester has intentionally grown- more trams, bigger universities, more media. It was doing that before Mayor Andy and I trust it will do so after him. And that's worked. It probably has sucked energy out of the surrounding towns- their role has changed from hubs in their own right into subsiduary parts of GM. But that's what always happens- Romford has changed from a first town outside London into an agreeable outer suburb, and that's traumatic for people who have deeper roots here than I do. And the overall effect is to leave everyone better off.
Or take the northern town I have most experience of- Mirfield. Historically, it had local industries like textiles and boatyards. They've largely gone, and it's a quirky place to live with a monastery and waterfront and easyish access to Leeds. That's a process that's been happening for decades.
So what do we want? Keep economic activity scattered in towns, even if it makes us all less rich? Or accept that cities generate prosperity better, and use that money to make it easier for towns to function as suburbs? How you balance those depends quite a lot on how prosperous you are yourself. But denying the choice is one of the bits of denial that we've largely indulged in for too long.
On Greater Manchester: clearly Manchester itself is doing well. But it's not at the expense of all the other towns: Altrincham is doing very well indeed, Stockport is on the up and despite perhaps a more downbeat retail offer than it was in the 80s is doing rather better than ever, Bury is doing all right. Manchester is not sucking the life out of those places. Wigan is not thriving, but - and I'd invite e.g. @dixiedean 's view here - seems to be doing no worse than at any time in the last 30 years. Ditto Tameside. But Rochdale (civic motto: "it could be worse, look at Oldham") and Oldham are awful and Bolton has declined massively in my lifetime.
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I don't live in Oldham.
I don't think this is cities sucking the life out of towns. I think this is towns thriving or failing for reasons of their own.
Grew up in Rochdale, went to college in Oldham. The problem is the disconnection caused by the hills - they are both enclosed and cut off. Ironically the SELNEC plan would have stuck new roads in which would have helped, as would have the new rail network plugged into the Picc-Vic tunnel.
None of that happened. Rochdale was always mad, with Pennine villages described officially as "townships". And now endless new houses being built on flood plains with no new roads or shops or facilities. Madness, sadly not on stilts.
Central Stockport has, improbably, become somewhere I would very much choose to live if I was a twenty something. This was very much not how things were in the 90s. Two big factors have brought this about: 1) Central Manchester is now both attractive and expensive - so somewhere ten minutes away from Central Manchester by fast and comfortable and frequent public transport becomes theoretically attractive 2) Stockport always had the potential to be great - there is antiquity there and interesting changes in levels and interesting architecture - but it has, in the last fifteen years, really made the most of this: pubs which were very chair-over-the-back-of-the-head in the 90s but which you could blur your eyes and see the beauty of - well, people have both seen and realised the potential. There are lots of nice places to eat and drink and be. The town is pleasantly lively. This has been done by a mix of private sector inititiative and public sector encouragement: not every decision has been correct, but the trend has been in the right direction.
Note also that while Stockport used to be a bit rough, there was also a significant middle class element, which got more so as you moved in all directions except north east. If you chose to live in Central Stockport in the early years of gentrification, you weren't a million miles from anywhere nice.
Rochdale has a minor drawback that while it has a regular rail service to Manchester, its town centre is nowhere near the station, and the station is not in the most obvious area to take advantage of any historical hidden niceness. But in general I agree with your strategy.
I’ve just realised the closest analogy to the UK 2026. It’s not Germany or Japan or Greece or even Britain in the 70s
It’s the Ottoman Empire in about 1912. Grievously in debt, literally falling apart, racially turbulent, governed by idiots, pretending to be what it isn’t, militarily enfeebled, the sick man of Europe - hollowed out in multiple ways
Which means we don’t need a Streeting, Burnham or Miliband. We need Kemal Ataturk
I'd think the Austro-Hungarian Empire might be a better fit: a dual-monarchy/Act of Union, a faded power, but still a cultural powerhouse, run by idiots, etc, etc.
New polling shock: Public more sensible than government
“What does the public really want on tax-and-spend and borrowing?
Today’s @CityAM / @tweetfreshwater Poll paints a strikingly different picture compared to the direction many Labour MPs are pushing.
By a margin of 64% to 27%, voters say Labour should “tax less, spend less, and reduce government borrowing” — even if it means less investment in public services and infrastructure. Just 9% are unsure.
That view cuts across almost every demographic: - 68% of 18–34s back lower tax and spending - 63% of 35–54s and 63% of over-55s agree - Women back it 65% to 22%, men 63% to 31%
Even among Labour voters, a majority (53%) favour lower tax, spending, and borrowing — versus 42% who want higher taxes and spending.
And there’s clear political caution around any shift leftwards: 52% say they would be concerned if a new Labour leader pursued a more left-wing economic agenda than Keir Starmer, compared to 36% unconcerned.
The public mood is far more fiscally cautious than Westminster often assumes.”
What i find odd about Starmer having to be dragged kicking and screaming out.of #10 is the claim was he never really wanted to be PM, it was stop Jezza and that if he did get elected it would be one term max and he doesnt look like a man who enjoys being PM at all (other foreign jollies, which the off ramp people are giving him is go be foreign secretary).
Most Prime Ministers don't have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
You are aware what I do to socks?
Presumably not wear them as you are a North London hipster in Primrose Hill or wherever.
And we’re off. Real world response to Labour’s current psychodrama: bank stocks are being sold off, gilts spiked 10% at opening and the pound fell 0.5% against the dollar.
The yield on 30-year debt has just hit its highest level since 1998.
GENERAL ELECTION INCOMING
Seriously, what are the odds on a GE in 2026? They might be VALUE
What i find odd about Starmer having to be dragged kicking and screaming out.of #10 is the claim was he never really wanted to be PM, it was stop Jezza and that if he did get elected it would be one term max and he doesnt look like a man who enjoys being PM at all (other foreign jollies, which the off ramp people are giving him is go be foreign secretary).
Most Prime Ministers don't have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
Heath sailed in the Fastnet while PM
Starmer hasn't helped himself, but there was no honeymoon period, he's been battered by the press from the outset and undermined from within. Much like May was by her party.
What i find odd about Starmer having to be dragged kicking and screaming out.of #10 is the claim was he never really wanted to be PM, it was stop Jezza and that if he did get elected it would be one term max and he doesnt look like a man who enjoys being PM at all (other foreign jollies, which the off ramp people are giving him is go be foreign secretary).
Most Prime Ministers don't have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No.10.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
You are aware what I do to socks?
Presumably not wear them as you are a North London hipster in Primrose Hill or wherever.
lolz, spat a bit of tea there
Not sure Camden can be described as North London though
Now *Darren Jones* is reported to be out sounding out supporters for his own run...
Is he Ben Swain in all of this?
Or is he John Major? (I don't think he is, not yet. But one thing a Prime Minister needs is a killer instinct, coupled to a sense of timing.)
Wikipedia tells me he was the “south west coordinator” for Andy Burnham’s 2015 leadership campaign.
His cv is such dire reading to be honest. Student union president at a poly, made his first tilt at Parliament at age 24. No proper experience building wealth in the real world, just another pointless greasy pole climber.
New polling shock: Public more sensible than government
“What does the public really want on tax-and-spend and borrowing?
Today’s @CityAM / @tweetfreshwater Poll paints a strikingly different picture compared to the direction many Labour MPs are pushing.
By a margin of 64% to 27%, voters say Labour should “tax less, spend less, and reduce government borrowing” — even if it means less investment in public services and infrastructure. Just 9% are unsure.
That view cuts across almost every demographic: - 68% of 18–34s back lower tax and spending - 63% of 35–54s and 63% of over-55s agree - Women back it 65% to 22%, men 63% to 31%
Even among Labour voters, a majority (53%) favour lower tax, spending, and borrowing — versus 42% who want higher taxes and spending.
And there’s clear political caution around any shift leftwards: 52% say they would be concerned if a new Labour leader pursued a more left-wing economic agenda than Keir Starmer, compared to 36% unconcerned.
The public mood is far more fiscally cautious than Westminster often assumes.”
The problem is the voter wants to have his cake and to eat it. More spending on stuff the voter likes and fewer taxes should do the trick.
The media is so febrile I fear only the Conservatives will be allowed to Govern. Starmer's honeymoon finshed the moment to left the King at the Palace.
Starmer lays down the gauntlet at Cabinet! "Come and have a go..."
Why does he not just sack the shysters in cabinet and have a new one of young talent, they could not be worse than the ragtag bunch of losers trying to save their sorry skins by ousting him and certainly be no worse for the country. Call the losers bluffs and sack them, show he has a backbone and at worst he will take the whole ship down with him.
Greek. GREEK 10 yr rate is 3.73%, our 10 yr yield is a mind boggling 5.115%.
How about that.
Very drachmatic.
We're in desperate trouble.
We have two choices - driest, tightest gov't (Benefit cuts, pension freezes, pension age to 75, insurance based healthcare system and so on) or join the Euro. Since Nige is riding high, the Eurozone won't take us with a seemingly imminent Reform Gov't coming in so it's going to have to be proper massive cuts (Tax rises will just hit the economy even more). Neither Labour nor Reform is likely going to cut properly so we're fucked.
that bunch of cowards will not be brave and take a chance of losing their places at the trough.
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Indeed. Take something that works and apply it elsewhere. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
I don’t know why, I’d be interested too. But it does seem a little odd that given the growth and alleged great feeling in the city and region Labour got a battering from left and right.
There is also much skepticism surrounding “Manchesterism”, with suggestions it has merely sucked in economic energy from nearby smaller towns
I don’t know who is right. I’d like the skeptics to be wrong. It’s nice to think SOMEWHERE in the UK is thriving
The city/town thing is interesting, and highlights one of the sad tradeoffs we have to make.
There's a pretty convincing argument that big cities are more productive than small towns. More chances to make new connections, spark off new ideas. If you are young, they're also just more fun. It's fun to meet lots of new contemporaries, rather than the same thirty you went to school with. That doesn't have to be another ring of building on the fringe, it could just be improving the transport links.
Manchester has intentionally grown- more trams, bigger universities, more media. It was doing that before Mayor Andy and I trust it will do so after him. And that's worked. It probably has sucked energy out of the surrounding towns- their role has changed from hubs in their own right into subsiduary parts of GM. But that's what always happens- Romford has changed from a first town outside London into an agreeable outer suburb, and that's traumatic for people who have deeper roots here than I do. And the overall effect is to leave everyone better off.
Or take the northern town I have most experience of- Mirfield. Historically, it had local industries like textiles and boatyards. They've largely gone, and it's a quirky place to live with a monastery and waterfront and easyish access to Leeds. That's a process that's been happening for decades.
So what do we want? Keep economic activity scattered in towns, even if it makes us all less rich? Or accept that cities generate prosperity better, and use that money to make it easier for towns to function as suburbs? How you balance those depends quite a lot on how prosperous you are yourself. But denying the choice is one of the bits of denial that we've largely indulged in for too long.
On Greater Manchester: clearly Manchester itself is doing well. But it's not at the expense of all the other towns: Altrincham is doing very well indeed, Stockport is on the up and despite perhaps a more downbeat retail offer than it was in the 80s is doing rather better than ever, Bury is doing all right. Manchester is not sucking the life out of those places. Wigan is not thriving, but - and I'd invite e.g. @dixiedean 's view here - seems to be doing no worse than at any time in the last 30 years. Ditto Tameside. But Rochdale (civic motto: "it could be worse, look at Oldham") and Oldham are awful and Bolton has declined massively in my lifetime.
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I don't live in Oldham.
I don't think this is cities sucking the life out of towns. I think this is towns thriving or failing for reasons of their own.
Wigan. I'm not living there but my family still does. It's much better off than even 10 years ago. Rents are increasing at above the national average and there's a shed load of new housing. House prices are rising, but they haven't reached farcical levels as of yet. It's blessed with some of the best transport links in the country and is commutable for both Liverpool and Manchester. It's been substantially "greened" since I was a kid, too. Large areas which were derelict industrial sites are now back in a state of nature. It's a Cavalier, Royalist outpost in Puritan Lancashire. King Street on a Friday is as decadent and louche as anywhere. Great music and club scene. You have a good time in Wigan. It's a culture which grew out of mining. You knew the people on your shift at your pit. You lived with them. And trusted them quite literally with your life. Those from another shift, another pit were alien. Leigh thinks it shouldn't be Wigan. Most Wiganers don't visit Leigh. Bolton is another world. Manchester might as well be another Solar System. It suffers from having had a huge drain on the population over decades. There really weren't any opportunities. A great number of people left never to return including me. The people who remained are absolutely lovely. Some of the kindest, friendliest people in the country. But very much ones who are content with narrow horizons. There's nowt wrong with that at all. But they don't need, want or like change. And it's changing. Folk are moving in. With wine bars and Thai food and the like. And Turkish barbers. People don't necessarily like it. If they did they'd have left long ago.
I saw a sign in a fast food shop on Wallgate (Wigan) last year: "We take card payments!" I was intrigued by the thought that this wasn't a given. But I'm glad to hear your report. I got the impression that Wigan was better than it used to be but I never really knew how it used to be.
There was briefly a regular hourly fast service from Wigan to Manchester. It took 20 minutes or so. I'd argue that this was, and could be again (and especially if it were made half hourly) a massive benefit to the town. Not least because (in contrast to Rochdale), Wigan's train stations are gratifyingly central for the town.
Allies of Burnham tell me this morning a timetable of electing a new Labour leader and PM by conference end of Sept would give the Manchester mayor enough time to get back to Westminster and stand. “Colleagues will not accept another London leader”
"Another London leader" such as... Darren Jones (Bristol), John Healey (South Yorkshire), Yvette Cooper (West Yorkshire) or Pat McFadden (Midlands).
Just be honest and say "Colleagues will not accept any leader other than the King of the North riding into town on his donkey like a latter-day Dick Whittington to endow the population with his humility, wisdom and experience running the trams in Newton Heath".
The other thing to say about the bond market is that in many respects they're remarkably lenient - I guess there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a safe harbour. Britain has been able to borrow an astonishing amount of money over the last ~two decades, and hasn't spent it on all that much of use, and the bond market has been largely fine with it, because Britain has always had a halfway plausible plan to be able to pay it back in the future.
I think there are lots of ways that a future Green government, or a new Labour PM determined to spend more, can increase spending, provided that they are able to provide the bond market with a halfway plausible plan for being able to pay it back in the future. It's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of people around determined not to meet it, determined not to learn the lesson of the Truss Calamity.
Bond rates are now over 5% for 10y paper, and they’re going to keep ticking up for as long as it appears the government - whichever government - doesn’t have a handle on spending.
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Indeed. Take something that works and apply it elsewhere. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
I don’t know why, I’d be interested too. But it does seem a little odd that given the growth and alleged great feeling in the city and region Labour got a battering from left and right.
There is also much skepticism surrounding “Manchesterism”, with suggestions it has merely sucked in economic energy from nearby smaller towns
I don’t know who is right. I’d like the skeptics to be wrong. It’s nice to think SOMEWHERE in the UK is thriving
The city/town thing is interesting, and highlights one of the sad tradeoffs we have to make.
There's a pretty convincing argument that big cities are more productive than small towns. More chances to make new connections, spark off new ideas. If you are young, they're also just more fun. It's fun to meet lots of new contemporaries, rather than the same thirty you went to school with. That doesn't have to be another ring of building on the fringe, it could just be improving the transport links.
Manchester has intentionally grown- more trams, bigger universities, more media. It was doing that before Mayor Andy and I trust it will do so after him. And that's worked. It probably has sucked energy out of the surrounding towns- their role has changed from hubs in their own right into subsiduary parts of GM. But that's what always happens- Romford has changed from a first town outside London into an agreeable outer suburb, and that's traumatic for people who have deeper roots here than I do. And the overall effect is to leave everyone better off.
Or take the northern town I have most experience of- Mirfield. Historically, it had local industries like textiles and boatyards. They've largely gone, and it's a quirky place to live with a monastery and waterfront and easyish access to Leeds. That's a process that's been happening for decades.
So what do we want? Keep economic activity scattered in towns, even if it makes us all less rich? Or accept that cities generate prosperity better, and use that money to make it easier for towns to function as suburbs? How you balance those depends quite a lot on how prosperous you are yourself. But denying the choice is one of the bits of denial that we've largely indulged in for too long.
Having grown up in Rochdale I can confirm it was no different in the 80s as it is today - a satellite town of Manchester. Indeed GM has the problem of too many of these satellite towns too close to Manchester (and remember that "Manchester" is Manchester/Salford/Trafford).
We're also in the new world of having high streets die as big chains struggle and property is left to rot by big capital.
Rochdale is a prime example. Two indoor malls - one half empty, the other newer one abandoned), a main shopping street largely shuttered, and a new outdoor smaller mall. Literally not enough shops to fill the space. So I would CPI both indoor malls, flatten the older one and transfer shops into the newer one. Redevelop the site of the 70s one. CPI most of the shuttered shops on Yorkshire Street and convert them into mixed use retail / residential. And open enterprise arcades where small retail outlets can have a shop space for peppercorn rent as Stockton on Tees have done so successfully.
The model is there, you just need politicians with imagination to go at it.
Is this an example of where having a regional Mayor can give that political impetus?
'Senior minister Darren Jones suggests any return of Manchester mayor Andy Burnham would be "fantasy politics", telling the BBC conversations about "strategy" should happen "internally - as opposed to in public" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
Oooh. Skyr wants Wes?
Yes and no.
He absolutely doesn't want Andy Burnham who he thinks is putting ego over the greater good.
For once I agree with Skyr. Burnham’s desperate careerism is an ugly spectacle
But then Starmer is guilty of the same, if not worse, as he’s PM
Could say same for Streeting, and his machinations.
Labour's problem is with WWC voters in north. The urban yuppies will return out of fear of the fascistos.
That's why Labour have to go for Burnham. Can you imagine how Wes will go down in County Durham or Nottinghamshire?
Burnham would be a gift to Reform and the Greens. His naked careerism and sense of entitlement is an open goal.
He’s a northern version of Starmer.
Far left Labour MP on GMB demanding Labour lurches to the left to counter the Greens and win back votes from them and Reform
Reform voters in red wall are social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
I would be really interested to learn a lot more about why Manchester is apparently growing better than most of the rest of the country, what is driving that and whether policies introduced by Burnham have contributed to it. If they have are these policies capable of being scaled for the rest of the UK?
Indeed. Take something that works and apply it elsewhere. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
I don’t know why, I’d be interested too. But it does seem a little odd that given the growth and alleged great feeling in the city and region Labour got a battering from left and right.
There is also much skepticism surrounding “Manchesterism”, with suggestions it has merely sucked in economic energy from nearby smaller towns
I don’t know who is right. I’d like the skeptics to be wrong. It’s nice to think SOMEWHERE in the UK is thriving
The city/town thing is interesting, and highlights one of the sad tradeoffs we have to make.
There's a pretty convincing argument that big cities are more productive than small towns. More chances to make new connections, spark off new ideas. If you are young, they're also just more fun. It's fun to meet lots of new contemporaries, rather than the same thirty you went to school with. That doesn't have to be another ring of building on the fringe, it could just be improving the transport links.
Manchester has intentionally grown- more trams, bigger universities, more media. It was doing that before Mayor Andy and I trust it will do so after him. And that's worked. It probably has sucked energy out of the surrounding towns- their role has changed from hubs in their own right into subsiduary parts of GM. But that's what always happens- Romford has changed from a first town outside London into an agreeable outer suburb, and that's traumatic for people who have deeper roots here than I do. And the overall effect is to leave everyone better off.
Or take the northern town I have most experience of- Mirfield. Historically, it had local industries like textiles and boatyards. They've largely gone, and it's a quirky place to live with a monastery and waterfront and easyish access to Leeds. That's a process that's been happening for decades.
So what do we want? Keep economic activity scattered in towns, even if it makes us all less rich? Or accept that cities generate prosperity better, and use that money to make it easier for towns to function as suburbs? How you balance those depends quite a lot on how prosperous you are yourself. But denying the choice is one of the bits of denial that we've largely indulged in for too long.
Having grown up in Rochdale I can confirm it was no different in the 80s as it is today - a satellite town of Manchester. Indeed GM has the problem of too many of these satellite towns too close to Manchester (and remember that "Manchester" is Manchester/Salford/Trafford).
We're also in the new world of having high streets die as big chains struggle and property is left to rot by big capital.
Rochdale is a prime example. Two indoor malls - one half empty, the other newer one abandoned), a main shopping street largely shuttered, and a new outdoor smaller mall. Literally not enough shops to fill the space. So I would CPI both indoor malls, flatten the older one and transfer shops into the newer one. Redevelop the site of the 70s one. CPI most of the shuttered shops on Yorkshire Street and convert them into mixed use retail / residential. And open enterprise arcades where small retail outlets can have a shop space for peppercorn rent as Stockton on Tees have done so successfully.
The model is there, you just need politicians with imagination to go at it.
"Revive the high streets" has been a Canute like policy of government for a couple of decades. Towns need people living in them far more than they need another scheme to subsidise retail.
And that is what I am suggesting. Get people living in the centres. As Manchester has done.
The interesting aspect of Starmers refusal to resign is this completely screws Burnham .
It’s forcing an earlier challenge .
Sky reporting that it could be as early as today that Burnham will announce the seat he will stand in
There is a good chance he will just cost Labour a seat. If you add the Reform/Green surge and the fact that a lot of Labour members want Starmer to continue, it is hard to think any seat is a sure thing.
I hope the person who is to give up a seat to enable the contest finds that it was worth while.
The other thing to say about the bond market is that in many respects they're remarkably lenient - I guess there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a safe harbour. Britain has been able to borrow an astonishing amount of money over the last ~two decades, and hasn't spent it on all that much of use, and the bond market has been largely fine with it, because Britain has always had a halfway plausible plan to be able to pay it back in the future.
I think there are lots of ways that a future Green government, or a new Labour PM determined to spend more, can increase spending, provided that they are able to provide the bond market with a halfway plausible plan for being able to pay it back in the future. It's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of people around determined not to meet it, determined not to learn the lesson of the Truss Calamity.
And UK debt as compared to GDP is high, but not out of line with many other countries. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CHN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA gives 2024 figures. The UK is at 101%, while above us are Portugal (102%), the US (103%), Italy (133%), Bahrain (134%), Greece (170%), Singapore (177%), Japan (201%) and Taiwan (245%!!!). France and Spain (94%) are not much below us.
We have done this before about Singapore, thats its really a totally fake figure. We know Japan is a mess. I would be intetested to know, is Taiwan that high for the same reasons as Singapore i.e. it down to the way the accounting of health and pension systems work rather than actual real debt.
Good morning from St Pancras where the shoplifters are out. Took a few bits of food before the security guard intervened and left quickly. Staff then quickly replenished the shelves and life continues. Years since I have seen this low level crime. A decade at least but it doesn’t seem to register with any of the public as if we are inured to it
If Burnham could put aside his personal hubris, he should realise that he and his legacy would do far better if he remained Mayor of GM, with a reputation of being"the best Prime Minister we never had", because let's face it, based on his previous tenure in the Commons, did he ever really achieve anything of note?
Why do people think that as PM he would be able to do a significantly better job than any of the recent incumbents?
We live in extraordinary times, and we need an extraordinary leader. I just don't see one lurking in any of the current parties, sadly. They've all been caught up in the populist trend - I must give my supporters what they want, not what they need.
As Bunrham is the only Labour contender who clearly outpolls Farage
He might do better in polling - initially, but when he fails to solve the problems of the country, as he surely will (he may give some voters what they want, to the ire of the rest) hell just be another failed leader.
I can't see party that is going to solve the problems of the country so your analysis pretty much applies to every party. Anyone who believes Reform or the Greens will do it is delusional I'm afraid. I suspect Farage is secretly terrified of becoming PM and actually having to deliver things like a successful Brexit and stopping illegal immigration.
The majority of the country will never be happy until they are given the moon on a stick for free.
Well quite, the electorate needs to wise up and the politicians need to do some hard thinking on what is actually best for the country, not the desires of their core supporters, and then try selling that across the whole electorate. Otherwise we are screwed. Maybe we are screwed anyway.
Allies of Burnham tell me this morning a timetable of electing a new Labour leader and PM by conference end of Sept would give the Manchester mayor enough time to get back to Westminster and stand. “Colleagues will not accept another London leader”
This is the problem with the Labour party right now and I suspect part of that has been the total media focus on Wes Streeting, Angela Raynor and Andy Burnham who isn't even in Parliament and any attempt to try to shoe horn him back into Parliament via an unnecessary by-election comes with huge risks for his leadership ambitions and the Labour party right now.
Like the Conservative membership in recent years, Labour yet again risk picking a leader that is the most tolerable to their membership/grassroots rather than picking a leader that is a natural central ground candidate that will attract wider support from the electorate who might be tempted to vote for Reform, Conservatives or Libdem in different parts of the country! And that is the big problem Labour face when it comes to replacing Keir Starmer right now despite their large majority, they have so many first time MPs who face the threat of being unseated from different parties in various parts of the UK.
There is no doubt that there is no single one faction pushing for Keir Starmer to go, this anger and discontent with his leadership is coming from across the board, but what I cannot see right now is a single candidate within the Labour Westminster Parliamentary party that would be able to bring the party and membership together as well as being seen as popular choice among the wider electorate. The big danger is that they pick their own Liz Truss and live to regret it before being forced to pick a more sensible choice like Rushi Sunak last minute but leaving them with a poisoned chalice and no chance of turning things around.
The other thing to say about the bond market is that in many respects they're remarkably lenient - I guess there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a safe harbour. Britain has been able to borrow an astonishing amount of money over the last ~two decades, and hasn't spent it on all that much of use, and the bond market has been largely fine with it, because Britain has always had a halfway plausible plan to be able to pay it back in the future.
I think there are lots of ways that a future Green government, or a new Labour PM determined to spend more, can increase spending, provided that they are able to provide the bond market with a halfway plausible plan for being able to pay it back in the future. It's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of people around determined not to meet it, determined not to learn the lesson of the Truss Calamity.
And UK debt as compared to GDP is high, but not out of line with many other countries. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CHN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA gives 2024 figures. The UK is at 101%, while above us are Portugal (102%), the US (103%), Italy (133%), Bahrain (134%), Greece (170%), Singapore (177%), Japan (201%) and Taiwan (245%!!!). France and Spain (94%) are not much below us.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 23m If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
Lets all understand the reality here. If Starmer refuses to go and Streeting refuses to challenge him, the problem doesn't go away. The opposite. It gets worse, a cancer spreading through the PLP where so much of their run time is focused on it rather than governing.
But with the greatest respect to Wes, we are all waiting for Burnham. If he announces that (a) he is seeking selection to Urmston (typical voter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyiMVkgW-4) and (b) wants to challenge Starmer, then we're back to the NEC. Because even if Streeting then stands, it would be extraordinary for the NEC to propose a timetable that excludes Burnham.
What fun. And I thought all of this was finished with the change of government.
But I still don't get why so many people think Andy Burnham is the answer. The arguments I've seen so far is "he's more popular /does better in polling", and "He's been a good mayor". We've had a few PMs who have talked a good talk recently (and quite a few who haven't). Being popular, saying what people want to hear and having naked ambition for the top job are not key qualities, I fear.
How long is it going to take to realise the game is up. Even if he managed somehow to sack his way to.survival today, the chabllenge will be back after the next relaunch in a few months, i mean weeks, i mean days time.
Ministers resign regularly, it needs senior ministers to quit to give it ballast and momentum.
The most worrying thing is that minister quitting thinks we haven't been spending enough money. No wonder our debt is getting repriced like it's a Wonga payday loan.
Much to my annoyance I know a lot of Green voters, last weekend, not for the first time, they were all saying governments don't have to make the markets happy, they should ignore the markets, governments should focus on making the electorate happy.
If they dont like the current inflation and interest rates, they are gonna really love them after some Zackonomics.
It will require this country to hit rock bottom before the swathes of ignoraniuses realise that profit is not an immoral or dirty byproduct of economic activity, but the entire purpose and driver of it. The trouble is, rock bottom might be far deeper than any of imagine - see Argentina or Zimbabwe (or Western Rome)!
I suspect that will prove as accurate as your prediction that Arsenal will cruise to the title by 9 points. They will be lucky to crawl over the finishing line.
I’m not sure I remember ever making any predictions about the football.
Could be confusing you with Moonrabbit, apologies if so
Comments
https://x.com/ReturnofColin2/status/2053948388270354574
To supposedly encourage domestic steel to be bought, but there isn't any with the mad policies of Ed Miliband. We buy it in, turn it into products and export those to the Chinese amongst others.
What planet is this Gov't on !??
I'm crunching the numbers from last Thursday for my part of the world. The Labour implosion here was dramatic to say the least.
In my Ward, the Labour vote share fell from 61% to 23% and I make the swing to the Newham Independents 34% which even a Lib Dem like me used to such huge swings against the Conservatives finds impressive.
Coincidentally, my Ward had the best Conservative result in the whole Borough - 19% and third in front of the Greens. Stodge Towers is obviously in the better part of the Borough (that's a stretch compared to Olympic Park or the Docks admittedly but if you had told me 10 years ago, the day would come when the Conservatives would poll better in my Ward than Royal Victoria or Royal Albert I would have thought you East Ham (one stop away from Barking)).
Labour came out canvassing on the Friday before the election "knocking on the Tamil doors" so one of the candidates told me but they had obviously given up on the Muslims. However, the Tamils split between Labour and the Conservatives and the NIP came through the middle.
Worth noting the turnout in my Ward was 40% compared with 35% in 2022 and across most of the Borough there was a small but significant rise in turnout.
Labour did fight hard to be fair in other parts of the Borough - they held on to a seat in Plaistow North and one in Green Street West which I had considered unlikely.
Build a road and investment follows along each side - new housing, new industrial estates, new business parks, new recreational facilities.
If anyone knows what's behind the Taiwan figure, that would be interesting.
Those who want this Government gone (as distinct from those who simply want Starmer gone) will take any and every disruption to clamour for an election which will rightly be ignored.
Starmer and Labour won a mandate in July 2024 just as Johnson and the Conservatives did in December 2019.
There's no difference at all.
It'll be nice to have another Prime Minister who follows me on social media.
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
23m
If Wes Streeting does not challenge the prime minister then it is hard to see how anyone else can get the numbers now..
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2054122078320644396
It’s the Ottoman Empire in about 1912. Grievously in debt, literally falling apart, racially turbulent, governed by idiots, pretending to be what it isn’t, militarily enfeebled, the sick
man of Europe - hollowed out in multiple ways
Which means we don’t need a Streeting, Burnham or Miliband. We need Kemal Ataturk
If you want to kill the king then you can't miss, nor can you not bother taking your shot and just ask him to leave nicely because you don't think he's doing a great job. And having resignations from the kitchen staff to force him out.
Have a proper leadership challenge and be done with it. Burnham only has himself to blame for not being an MP.
I'm not living there but my family still does.
It's much better off than even 10 years ago. Rents are increasing at above the national average and there's a shed load of new housing. House prices are rising, but they haven't reached farcical levels as of yet. It's blessed with some of the best transport links in the country and is commutable for both Liverpool and Manchester.
It's been substantially "greened" since I was a kid, too. Large areas which were derelict industrial sites are now back in a state of nature.
It's a Cavalier, Royalist outpost in Puritan Lancashire. King Street on a Friday is as decadent and louche as anywhere. Great music and club scene. You have a good time in Wigan.
It's a culture which grew out of mining. You knew the people on your shift at your pit. You lived with them. And trusted them quite literally with your life. Those from another shift, another pit were alien. Leigh thinks it shouldn't be Wigan. Most Wiganers don't visit Leigh. Bolton is another world. Manchester might as well be another Solar System.
It suffers from having had a huge drain on the population over decades. There really weren't any opportunities. A great number of people left never to return including me.
The people who remained are absolutely lovely. Some of the kindest, friendliest people in the country. But very much ones who are content with narrow horizons. There's nowt wrong with that at all. But they don't need, want or like change. And it's changing. Folk are moving in. With wine bars and Thai food and the like. And Turkish barbers.
People don't necessarily like it. If they did they'd have left long ago.
Sir Graham Brady in his "Kingmaker" book cites a pattern of behaviour - initial determination to weather the storm and face down the opponents but at some point the PM takes the advice of someone who matters to them and decides they have to go and in the end they go quietly and often with dignity and I suspect a sense of relief tinged with disappointment.
I wouldn't want the job - it used to be cited LOTO was the toughest job in politics - I'm less convinced these days. The days when the PM could go to Scotland and shoot things for a month are long past - we seem to want to have the PM opine on anything and everything and be there 24/7/365 like an old teddy bear or sock. It might not be a bad idea to go back to the days of primus inter pares with a Deputy to run the show on occasions (I remember the anguish on here at the thought of Cameron going on holiday and leaving Clegg in charge).
Like the Conservative membership in recent years, Labour yet again risk picking a leader that is the most tolerable to their membership/grassroots rather than picking a leader that is a natural central ground candidate that will attract wider support from the electorate who might be tempted to vote for Reform, Conservatives or Libdem in different parts of the country! And that is the big problem Labour face when it comes to replacing Keir Starmer right now despite their large majority, they have so many first time MPs who face the threat of being unseated from different parties in various parts of the UK.
There is no doubt that there is no single one faction pushing for Keir Starmer to go, this anger and discontent with his leadership is coming from across the board, but what I cannot see right now is a single candidate within the Labour Westminster Parliamentary party that would be able to bring the party and membership together as well as being seen as popular choice among the wider electorate. The big danger is that they pick their own Liz Truss and live to regret it before being forced to pick a more sensible choice like Rushi Sunak last minute but leaving them with a poisoned chalice and no chance of turning things around.
But with the greatest respect to Wes, we are all waiting for Burnham. If he announces that (a) he is seeking selection to Urmston (typical voter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyiMVkgW-4) and (b) wants to challenge Starmer, then we're back to the NEC. Because even if Streeting then stands, it would be extraordinary for the NEC to propose a timetable that excludes Burnham.
What fun. And I thought all of this was finished with the change of government.
Would have thought he would be desperate for Wes to win
Easy target for Greens
Burnham would be a nightmare for him.
1) Central Manchester is now both attractive and expensive - so somewhere ten minutes away from Central Manchester by fast and comfortable and frequent public transport becomes theoretically attractive
2) Stockport always had the potential to be great - there is antiquity there and interesting changes in levels and interesting architecture - but it has, in the last fifteen years, really made the most of this: pubs which were very chair-over-the-back-of-the-head in the 90s but which you could blur your eyes and see the beauty of - well, people have both seen and realised the potential. There are lots of nice places to eat and drink and be. The town is pleasantly lively. This has been done by a mix of private sector inititiative and public sector encouragement: not every decision has been correct, but the trend has been in the right direction.
Note also that while Stockport used to be a bit rough, there was also a significant middle class element, which got more so as you moved in all directions except north east. If you chose to live in Central Stockport in the early years of gentrification, you weren't a million miles from anywhere nice.
Rochdale has a minor drawback that while it has a regular rail service to Manchester, its town centre is nowhere near the station, and the station is not in the most obvious area to take advantage of any historical hidden niceness. But in general I agree with your strategy.
“What does the public really want on tax-and-spend and borrowing?
Today’s @CityAM / @tweetfreshwater Poll paints a strikingly different picture compared to the direction many Labour MPs are pushing.
By a margin of 64% to 27%, voters say Labour should “tax less, spend less, and reduce government borrowing” — even if it means less investment in public services and infrastructure. Just 9% are unsure.
That view cuts across almost every demographic:
- 68% of 18–34s back lower tax and spending
- 63% of 35–54s and 63% of over-55s agree
- Women back it 65% to 22%, men 63% to 31%
Even among Labour voters, a majority (53%) favour lower tax, spending, and borrowing — versus 42% who want higher taxes and spending.
And there’s clear political caution around any shift leftwards: 52% say they would be concerned if a new Labour leader pursued a more left-wing economic agenda than Keir Starmer, compared to 36% unconcerned.
The public mood is far more fiscally cautious than Westminster often assumes.”
https://x.com/matthewlesh/status/2054107700800156037?s=46
Starmer hasn't helped himself, but there was no honeymoon period, he's been battered by the press from the outset and undermined from within.
Much like May was by her party.
Not sure Camden can be described as North London though
His cv is such dire reading to be honest. Student union president at a poly, made his first tilt at Parliament at age 24. No proper experience building wealth in the real world, just another pointless greasy pole climber.
The media is so febrile I fear only the Conservatives will be allowed to Govern. Starmer's honeymoon finshed the moment to left the King at the Palace.
Mind you he's been very poor ever since.
predisposition in Westminster to presume coups *always* succeed eg Thatcher & May & Johnson, but:
1995: John Major saw off right wing rebels
2009: Gordon Brown survived multiple cabinet minister resignations
2016: Jeremy Corbyn saw off 64 resignations and 80% of PLP begging him to quit (172:40)
NEW THREAD
Call the losers bluffs and sack them, show he has a backbone and at worst he will take the whole ship down with him.
But I'm glad to hear your report. I got the impression that Wigan was better than it used to be but I never really knew how it used to be.
There was briefly a regular hourly fast service from Wigan to Manchester. It took 20 minutes or so. I'd argue that this was, and could be again (and especially if it were made half hourly) a massive benefit to the town. Not least because (in contrast to Rochdale), Wigan's train stations are gratifyingly central for the town.
Just be honest and say "Colleagues will not accept any leader other than the King of the North riding into town on his donkey like a latter-day Dick Whittington to endow the population with his humility, wisdom and experience running the trams in Newton Heath".
Most of Trump's TS output should be labelled 'comedy'
I've been arguing that for years.
The country page has it as 27%.
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/TWN
And they are running large budget and balance of payments surpluses.
There’s no air defences left, and no tanks left. They’re now sitting ducks for Ukranian drones and missiles.
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/2053803416787247611
Nothing to worry about at all.
We've had a few PMs who have talked a good talk recently (and quite a few who haven't). Being popular, saying what people want to hear and having naked ambition for the top job are not key qualities, I fear.